If there apostolic succession why is it not mentioned in the scriptures?

[justasking4]

OK. Just between you and me. Shhhhhh. Jesus whispered a bunch of stuff to the Apostles behind closed doors and told them to pass it on to their successors as **Oral Tradition **but not to let ordinary people get hold of it. Then whenever a new bishop was appointed/elected, bishops who had received the secret message and the secret handshake initiated the newcomer into the esoteric mysteries known only to the brass . . . **NOT!] **

Other posters have already pointed you in the direction of these sources. Jurgens’ Faith of the Early Fathers gives the ECFs on specific practices and teachings. I have not read The Four Witnesses by Rod Bennett but it is highly recommended as a source for early doctrinal tradition in the Church.

One “tradition” I CAN cite is a prayer dating from 250 A.D., referring to Mary as “Mother of God” (Theotokos). The official articulation of this doctrine did not occur until the Council of Ephesus in 351 A.D.

So in a nutshell Scacred Oral Tradition are the writings and sayings of individuals in the early centuries?

 

[mercygate]

justasking4:

I would counter Newman with this: To know the Scriptures is to be Protestant.

And you would be correct – as far as it goes, because here you indicate a “knowing” of Scripture in isolation from the Source from which it sprang. On what grounds are you able to separate the Scriptures from the Church that identified them for you?

Once you see from history that the NT arose FROM the Church and that the NT was discerned BY the Church you are left with the fact that for more than 350 years a great deal of practice and teaching had arisen in response to a turbulent theological climate that was rife with heresy, and that that teaching and practice is linked doctrinally and historically directly to the Catholic Church, then you have a choice: ignore the facts or come to terms with them.

Doctrines most Protestants hold dear, such as the the Holy Trinity and the Hypostatic Union, and formulae, such as the Apostles’ Creed, arose well before the canonization of Scripture. Doctrines many Protestants reject, such as the Real Presence in the Eucharist, Confession, Mary as Mother of God, also arose long before the canonization of Scripture. How is it that the Church “got it right” with the New Testament while holding to all those “false” teachings “Bible Christians” reject? The math don’t compute.

Marcus Grodi, who works with Protestant ministers on their way into the Catholic Church, often quotes Newman about ‘ceasing to be Protestant.’ Grodi adds, however, that “ceasing to be Protestant” does not equate with being fully Catholic. In fact, that was Newman’s experience. He spent a period between two worlds before taking the plunge (what a story THAT is! Apologia pro Vita Sua*. *Warning: it’s a couple of hundred pages.)

It is often a difficult, painful, and tortuous journey from Protestant to Catholic. I should know. I made the trip. Took me far too long.

 

[zerocrossing]

What else on a doctrine level?

If the Church had not stood up in the early Councils for those doctrines - claiming that *these *are the doctrines handed down from the apostles - then you and I might be Arian or Monophysite or Nestorian heretics right now. (I am assuming that you are none of the above).

I know, you’re going to say: “But we can find evidence of these doctrines in Scripture.”

Yes, we can. BUT as we found in the early Church, Scripture was not sufficient to settle the matter. And it was tearing at the fabric of the Church.

When it came to the Trinity and the Incarnation, the doctrines as presented in Scripture were yielding wildly different interpretations (a problem that persists today, as we see new heresies crop up, denying the Trinity or the divinity/humanity of Christ - often using Scripture as the foundation for their claims). There is, frankly, not much flesh on these doctrines in Scripture. It was the Church that put the flesh on those bare bones. And it did so by means of apostolic Tradition.

And on top of all that, when the Councils were making these determinations about the nature of God, the New Testament Canon was not yet written in stone. So the doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation predate the final New Testament Canon. The Church believed them because of Tradition, not on the basis of Scripture alone.

 

[Erich]

Erich:

What makes it ok for Jesus and the Apostles to rely on something that is not recorded in the OT (i.e. the Scriptures of their day, which by the way can clearly be shown to have included the Deuterocanonicals

) as a basis for their teaching?
Why would this be a problem if they referenced other works outside of scripture?

You’re right… for me (and for Catholics) it’s not a problem.

But I can’t help but think that if the timestamp of your post had been “October 11, 37 AD” (or some other time prior to even the first book of the New Testament being written) instead of “October 11, 2007 AD,” you’d be the one asking the Apostles, “Whoa, where is that in Scripture?” (a Scripture which obviously only consisted of what we know today as the 73-book Old Testament).

 

[mercygate]

So in a nutshell Scacred Oral Tradition are the writings and sayings of individuals in the early centuries?

I think it can be safely said that “oral tradition” was employed in the preparation of the Gospels and even the epistles and other writings of the New Testament. But the Church has been writing stuff down for a long time. I would advise you to drop the “oral” issue and stick with the written records of the early Church. The Jurgens book set is particularly handy, if somewhat telegraphic in its presentation.

Because the Catholic Church accepts the authenticity of her Tradition, sometimes eager Catholics attempt to explain it as I joked in my earlier scenario of the “whispered secrets”. I have heard it said that the teaching on the perpetual virginity of Mary was told by Jesus to the Apostles.

Sacred Tradition is not like that. It is the living relationship between Christ and His Bride, the Church, guided by the Holy Spirit “into all the truth.” Sacred Tradition is the thread of gold running through the tangled tapestry of challenge as Christ continues to confront the world through His Church.

 

[zerocrossing]

Great. Perhaps i will something from you. i still need to study. Sounds you are an expert in it. If so, then i will certainly learn some things.

Not an expert by any means. But I have done some studying for a good number of years. Forgive me if I came off as arrogant or uncharitable.

]If the catholic church was not corrupt, then why was desired in the catholic church itself for a reformation around the 15th century?

Do you consider the inquisitions that was supported by various popes for centuries a sign of corruption?

How about some of the popes, the vicars of Christ who were evil. Is this a sign of corruption?

These are signs of human sin. And frankly, there’s plenty of sin and abuse to go around on both sides.

In Geneva, under the Protestant regime, Catholics were burned at the stake. In England, under the Protestant regimes of Elizabeth I and James I, Catholics were hung, drawn and quartered as a matter of policy. In Ireland, under the British Protestant regime, Catholics were deprived of all basic human rights for 200 years under the Penal Laws. And in the 19th century the Protestant regime allowed 2 million Irish Catholics to starve to death from the potato blight… when all the rulers had to do was open up the graineries - the fruit of Irish Catholic labor - to prevent the mass starvation. And it wasn’t as if the rulers didn’t know that they could prevent it. It was an intentional act of Protestant hatred.

So tell me… do you consider these to be signs of inherent corruption in Protestant Christianity? Or signs of the sinfulness and human frailty of the people involved?

The Catholic Church does NOT teach that Catholics cannot sin… even on a grand scale. It does not teach that the Pope cannot sin in his capacity as a human being. (That’s not what the Infallibility doctrine means. It has nothing to do with the personal opinions or behavior of the Pope). The Catholic Church teaches that the CHURCH cannot err in teaching on matters of doctrine and morals. Only when the Pope speaks ex cathedra is his position considered Infallible.

Some of these matters have been explained repeatedly in this thread by various posters. But you keep bringing up the same issues that have been addressed. So allow me to state definitively:

We do not believe that the Pope cannot sin. We do not believe that the Pope cannot have erroneous private opinions. We do not believe that a Pope cannot be wicked (though it’s been a good long time, thank God, since we’ve had a wicked Pope). In the medieval period, officials of the Church - including the Pope - did some things that almost all Catholics today consider wicked. Believe me, we probably know our dirty laundry a lot better than you do.

BUT we believe that through the working of the Holy Spirit, God has preserved the Church from spreading false *dogmas *- even in its most wicked periods. And as an added bonus, the power of the Holy Spirit has brought the Church back, time and again, from the abyss of sinful human actions.

When Protestants find human sinfulness, their tendency is to start a new church. This is in their DNA. Yes, that’s a slight overstatement. I know some Evangelicals who will stay planted where they are, and will pray and pray and pray for reform. But if reform does not come, they will ultimately start a new church.

What you as a Protestant probably cannot understand is why we choose to stay planted when the Church engaged in horrors like the Inquisition. My response is that the Inquisition was a long time ago. It’s no longer relevant. It was a perversion of the Catholic Christian faith, not a natural outgrowth of it. It has since been repudiated. By the power of the Holy Spirit, and the prayers of the faithful, the Church has reformed itself. If the Church was so intrinsically corrupt that God abandoned it, how then was it able to repent of these sins, when repentance comes from the prompting of the Holy Spirit?

 

[zerocrossing]

If the Church had not stood up in the early Councils for those doctrines - claiming that *these *are the doctrines handed down from the apostles - then you and I might be Arian or Monophysite or Nestorian heretics right now. (I am assuming that you are none of the above).

I know, you’re going to say: “But we can find evidence of these doctrines in Scripture.”

Yes, we can. BUT as we found in the early Church, Scripture was not sufficient to settle the matter. And it was tearing at the fabric of the Church.

When it came to the Trinity and the Incarnation, the doctrines as presented in Scripture were yielding wildly different interpretations (a problem that persists today, as we see new heresies crop up, denying the Trinity or the divinity/humanity of Christ - often using Scripture as the foundation for their claims). There is, frankly, not much flesh on these doctrines in Scripture. It was the Church that put the flesh on those bare bones. And it did so by means of apostolic Tradition.

And on top of all that, when the Councils were making these determinations about the nature of God, the New Testament Canon was not yet written in stone. So the doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation predate the final New Testament Canon. The Church believed them because of Tradition, not on the basis of Scripture alone.

Sorry… somehow my first paragraph got cut off. The question I was answering was what other doctrines come down to us from apostolic tradition.

I mentioned the Trinity and orthodox Christology (i.e. Christ is fully divine and fully human - 2 natures in 1 divine person). The remainder (that you can read above) is my explanation/defense of that claim.

 

[mercygate]

So has the OP been answered to the satisfaction of the poser of the question?

Some way up-thread, scriptural references were provided for Apostolic Succession, Petrine primacy, and the unity of the Church.

Done deal, right? Even if someone doesn’t accept the Catholic view, it could not be argued that Church teaching has no scriptural warrant.

Apostolic Succession is a question of what the Church believes/practices and why. It entails the key issue of authority: what the authority of the Church encompasses and how it is maintained through history and Tradition by the Holy Spirit through the promises of Christ.

 

[justasking4]

zerocrossing;2833660]Not an expert by any means. But I have done some studying for a good number of years. Forgive me if I came off as arrogant or uncharitable.

I to can relate to this.

These are signs of human sin. And frankly, there’s plenty of sin and abuse to go around on both sides.

How true.

In Geneva, under the Protestant regime, Catholics were burned at the stake. In England, under the Protestant regimes of Elizabeth I and James I, Catholics were hung, drawn and quartered as a matter of policy. In Ireland, under the British Protestant regime, Catholics were deprived of all basic human rights for 200 years under the Penal Laws. And in the 19th century the Protestant regime allowed 2 million Irish Catholics to starve to death from the potato blight… when all the rulers had to do was open up the graineries - the fruit of Irish Catholic labor - to prevent the mass starvation. And it wasn’t as if the rulers didn’t know that they could prevent it. It was an intentional act of Protestant hatred.

No way to argue for and as you have said there is blame on both sides. It does make me wonder if many of these things done were not done by non-catholics and non-protestants.

So tell me… do you consider these to be signs of inherent corruption in Protestant Christianity? Or signs of the sinfulness and human frailty of the people involved?

Human sin. As we both know the doctrines of our churches do not logically lead to the death of someone.

The Catholic Church does NOT teach that Catholics cannot sin… even on a grand scale. It does not teach that the Pope cannot sin in his capacity as a human being. (That’s not what the Infallibility doctrine means. It has nothing to do with the personal opinions or behavior of the Pope). The Catholic Church teaches that the CHURCH cannot err in teaching on matters of doctrine and morals. Only when the Pope speaks ex cathedra is his position considered Infallible.

Some of these matters have been explained repeatedly in this thread by various posters. But you keep bringing up the same issues that have been addressed. So allow me to state definitively:

We do not believe that the Pope cannot sin. We do not believe that the Pope cannot have erroneous private opinions. We do not believe that a Pope cannot be wicked (though it’s been a good long time, thank God, since we’ve had a wicked Pope). In the medieval period, officials of the Church - including the Pope - did some things that almost all Catholics today consider wicked. Believe me, we probably know our dirty laundry a lot better than you do.

BUT we believe that through the working of the Holy Spirit, God has preserved the Church from spreading false *dogmas *- even in its most wicked periods.

This is where we disagree.

And as an added bonus, the power of the Holy Spirit has brought the Church back, time and again, from the abyss of sinful human actions.

So it is claimed but not always true.

When Protestants find human sinfulness, their tendency is to start a new church. This is in their DNA. Yes, that’s a slight overstatement. I know some Evangelicals who will stay planted where they are, and will pray and pray and pray for reform. But if reform does not come, they will ultimately start a new church.

Sometimes this is true. The vast majority of “splits” that i’m aware of are due to church plantings and not a split on doctrines.

What you as a Protestant probably cannot understand is why we choose to stay planted when the Church engaged in horrors like the Inquisition. My response is that the Inquisition was a long time ago. It’s no longer relevant. It was a perversion of the Catholic Christian faith, not a natural outgrowth of it.

How can this be. Does not the catholic church teach that the pope has power over every human being in world? Is this not catholic doctrine?
If true, then things like an inquisition would logically follow from an all powerful leader.

It has since been repudiated. By the power of the Holy Spirit, and the prayers of the faithful, the Church has reformed itself.
If the Church was so intrinsically corrupt that God abandoned it, how then was it able to repent of these sins, when repentance comes from the prompting of the Holy Spirit?

I don’t doubt that the HS is working in particular individuals in the catholic church. However, it still has serious problems. Would you agree?

 

[davidv]

I don’t doubt that the HS is working in particular individuals in the catholic church. However, it still has serious problems. Would you agree?

No I don’t agree. Individual who claim to be Catholic may have serious problem, the Church does not. The truths she has taught remain true and constant.

 

[guanophore]

Evidently the mere fact that a writing that was somehow associated with an apostle was enough for the church to recognize that what was written was the truth in those documents.

No, this is not sufficient. Many spurious works claimed to be associated with Apostles. If it did not contain the Teaching of the Apostles, is was not considered canonical.

Why would this be a problem if they referenced other works outside of scripture?

It would mean that the Gospel message taught by Jesus and the Apostles was not dependent upon, or restricted to the written scriptures.

No doubt this document is one of the more interesting documents outside the NT. What this does demonstrate is how difficult if not impossible it is to give any real evidence-proof of a Sacred Oral Tradition of the apostles outside the NT.
(

I am not following this logic. How does the Didache being an interesting document demonstrate that iti is difficult to find evidenceo Sacred Oral Tradition? It seems to me that it demonstrates the opposite!

What is Tradition specifically that you are referring to? Do you know what the Traditions were in the first 4 centuries of the church?

Yes, because they are the same ones we have today!

If a protestant knows specifically what the Traditions are then we can see if they are truly accepting or rejecting them on subjective criteria.

It is impossible for a Protestant to know what the Sacred Traditions are. They are based upon Apostolic Teaching. Protestants have to reject that.

 

[NotWorthy]

No doubt this document is one of the more interesting documents outside the NT. What this does demonstrate is how difficult if not impossible it is to give any real evidence-proof of a Sacred Oral Tradition of the apostles outside the NT

OK, for the umpteenth time, someone has asked for any oral traditions taught by an Apostle that is not found in Scripture.

Can anyone find anything written by the Apostles that was NOT scriptural? Not that I know of.

So, in the absence of any non-scriptural Apostolic writings whatsoever, how can you claim there are no oral traditions not found in Scripture.

Am I making any sense, here?

I mean, if we found a preponderance of 1st century writings, but none of them included any Sacred Traditions, then you might have a case. But the only non-Scriptural 1st century writings that I know of, pertaining to the Church, are Clement’s letter to the Corinthians and the Didache. And there seem to be some Sacred Traditions taught in these.

 

[guanophore]

i keep reading posts that claim there is some kind of Sacred Oral Tradition of the apostles that is not in written Scripture. If there is such a thing then i would like to know specifically what this is.

Are you STILL trying to nail this jello to the wall?! It is the Teaching of the Catholic Church. It is the Gospel of Christ, that leads to “our common salvation, …the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.” Jude 3

What is this Sacred Tradition? What are specific examples of it in the first 3 centuries for example?

Some of that is present in the Didache, like the formula and rubrics for baptism. But you will find a fuller representation in the Catechism.

What else on a doctrine level?

Why are you trolling, ja4? Do you expect to find some uneducated Catholics here that will leave their faith for a Bible Church? We have been over this ad naseum, The Trinity, the hypostatic union, the doctrines of Mary. You take what you want, and relegate the rest to “speculations of men”, even though they all come from the same source!

 

[guanophore]

It could just as easily be shown in some respects how quickly the church was allowing unbilical teachings into the church at a very early stage.

I would counter Newman with this: To know the Scriptures is to be Protestant.

I think not, ja4, since the teachings were present prior the bible. In fact, the Bible was composed based, in part, upon conformity with those teachings. This is why claiming the Bible as the Sole or final authority is not workable.

 

[guanophore]

If the catholic church was not corrupt, then why was desired in the catholic church itself for a reformation around the 15th century?

Reform was needed in personal piety, practice, and disiciplines, not in the Teachings of the Apostles in Faith and Morals.

Do you consider the inquisitions that was supported by various popes for centuries a sign of corruption?

Not in the sense that you use it, no. You are saying that the Teaching of the Church was corrupt, which it was not. There were personal corruptions related to the inqusitions. Sinful men committed sins. None of that is part of the Divine Deposit of faith.

How about some of the popes, the vicars of Christ who were evil. Is this a sign of corruption?

No, not any more than Judas betraying Jesus is a sign that Jesus is corrupted.

Burn those Chick Tracts will you!

So in a nutshell Scacred Oral Tradition are the writings and sayings of individuals in the early centuries?

No. There are many writings and sayings that are not part of the Divine Deposit of Faith. Sacred Tradition only refers to the infallible communications that came from God.

 

[guanophore]

This is where we disagree.

How can this be. Does not the catholic church teach that the pope has power over every human being in world? Is this not catholic doctrine?

Nonsense. You really have to get RID of those Chick Tracts! They are making you spew nonsense!

The Pope has AUTHORITY which was given to Him by Jesus. This does not equate to “power”. However, I am sure if he did, he would, along with Christ not only desire that all men come to the knowledge of the Truth, but cause it to happen! No, God created men with free will. He does not violate it, and neither does His vicar.

If true, then things like an inquisition would logically follow from an all powerful leader.

Plenty of militarily based activities and abuses arise from sources that are not “all powerful leaders”. Bin Laden comes to mind, as does George Bush.

I don’t doubt that the HS is working in particular individuals in the catholic church. However, it still has serious problems. Would you agree?

No. The Soul of the Church is the HS, who is Divine, and incapable of error, and therefore, infallible. It is very improper to say that the creation of Jesus Christ has “serious problems”. Such a condition would reflect back upon HIm, as the author and finisher.

 

[zerocrossing]

Human sin. As we both know the doctrines of our churches do not logically lead to the death of someone.

Good. We are on the same page here. And I appreciate your acknowledgment that the doctrines of my Church do not logically lead to killing people.

So it is claimed but not always true.

Nobody is claiming that the Church today is perfect. We all know about the scandals of the last several years. But those were not a result of TEACHING, but of human sin. And they were certainly not sanctioned by the Pope!

Sometimes this is true. The vast majority of “splits” that i’m aware of are due to church plantings and not a split on doctrines.

Stick around for awhile. You’ll see them. I don’t know how many church splits I’ve seen close up over the years. Lots more than I’ve seen plantings.

How can this be. Does not the catholic church teach that the pope has power over every human being in world? Is this not catholic doctrine?

Nope. Not in my Catechism. The closest the CCC comes is:

937 The Pope enjoys, by divine institution, “supreme, full, immediate, and universal power in the care of souls” (CD 2).

In other words, universal power is only applicable to the *care *of souls… not to coercion or forced submission. Abuses of power in the past are just that… past.

If true, then things like an inquisition would logically follow from an all powerful leader.

Well, not true. And I’m starting to wonder too if you’re getting your information from Chick Tracts.

It is true that Medieval popes claimed temporal power, and some of them abused it. But temporal power (much less *universal *temporal power) has never been a dogma of the Church. If it had ever been a dogma (a doctrine that we are all required to believe), then it would still be a dogma today… and it’s not.

There’s no question that things happened 500 years ago… on both sides. Can you get over it? Popes today are not ordering the destruction of heretics and non-Catholics. And they haven’t done so in, well, centuries.

 

[guanophore]

Well, not true. And I’m starting to wonder too if you’re getting your information from Chick Tracts.

There’s no question that things happened 500 years ago… on both sides. Can you get over it? Popes today are not ordering the destruction of heretics and non-Catholics. And they haven’t done so in, well, centuries.

Boy did you hit that nail on the head!

If you want to send the Witnesses after me then i will be forced to use my ultimate weapon against you catholics and that is Jack Chick tracts…

 

[qui_est_ce]

So in a nutshell Scacred Oral Tradition are the writings and sayings of individuals in the early centuries?

Here’s a good one. The every-virginity of Mary. It is not in the Bible. How do you explain that Joseph wanted to divorce Mary after she got pregnant?

Non inspired writings (I believe Gospel of James or Proto-Evangelium of James- correct me if I’m wrong) Mary was dedicated to God by her parents Joachim and Anna. A widower was assigned to be her protector. But she gets pregnant, which makes him look bad, even though he didn’t do anything.

Then there are the catacombs, where the early Christians would gather. We find veneration for the sanctity and exalted privileges of Mary. In the paintings of the catacombs more particularly, we see the exceptional position that she began, from an early period. Some of these frescoes are believed to date from the first half of the second century.

Many other early church traditions which lead to Dogma began here.

Then you read the Early Church Fathers, Ireneaus, Justin Martyr, etc. They all believed in the Real Presence.

Nothing needed to be spelled out until a controversy or heresy came along.

The Trinity, Sunday, etc.

These doctrines are not EXPLICITLY found in Scripture, but once defined, our eyes are opened to the implicit teachings in what became defined a Inspired Scripture.

Here is another example of the need for Church and Authority. My sister claims she believes in God and Jesus. She does not need formal religion. I ask her, would she even know there is a God and Jesus after 2,000 years, if there were no Church, no Authority? Of course thane she changes the subject.

 

[justasking4]

qui est ce;2836849]Here’s a good one. The every-virginity of Mary. It is not in the Bible. How do you explain that Joseph wanted to divorce Mary after she got pregnant?

He thought she had an illicit affair.

Non inspired writings (I believe Gospel of James or Proto-Evangelium of James- correct me if I’m wrong) Mary was dedicated to God by her parents Joachim and Anna. A widower was assigned to be her protector. But she gets pregnant, which makes him look bad, even though he didn’t do anything.

Are you aware that James gospels were condemned as being false?

Then there are the catacombs, where the early Christians would gather. We find veneration for the sanctity and exalted privileges of Mary. In the paintings of the catacombs more particularly, we see the exceptional position that she began, from an early period. Some of these frescoes are believed to date from the first half of the second century.

Alll this shows is what some christians may have believed. It certainly was not based on scripture.

Many other early church traditions which lead to Dogma began here.

Then you read the Early Church Fathers, Ireneaus, Justin Martyr, etc. They all believed in the Real Presence.

Nothing needed to be spelled out until a controversy or heresy came along.

The Trinity, Sunday, etc.

These doctrines are not EXPLICITLY found in Scripture, but once defined, our eyes are opened to the implicit teachings in what became defined a Inspired Scripture.

The Trinity can easily be found in scripture. The real presence is far more complicated and as far as i understand there were a number of different views of it during the centuries.

Here is another example of the need for Church and Authority. My sister claims she believes in God and Jesus. She does not need formal religion. I ask her, would she even know there is a God and Jesus after 2,000 years, if there were no Church, no Authority? Of course thane she changes the subject.

To say you are in Christ and yet is not involved in a church is a denial of Hebrews 10:25 and I John 2:19